If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   The tiny town of Moab, Utah, has asked Bush not to use the acronym MOAB for a new bomb because it could damage city's image   (story.news.yahoo.com) divider line 76
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

3057 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Feb 2003 at 5:12 PM (11 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



76 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2003-02-28 12:37:43 PM  
I agree...think of the devastating effect it's had on the cruise industry. To say nothing of the Hotel Inter-Continental -- they're just reeling from the backlash.
 
2003-02-28 01:22:16 PM  
Have you ever been to Moab? What "image" do they think they have now? While the area around it has some of the most beautiful desert scenery anywhere, the town of Moab itself is a shiathole (unless it's improved dramatically in the years since I went through there).

The folks in Moab need to chill out. Maybe they should start by popping open a bottle of a great Utah beer--I think most of the residents in Moab could identify with the name of it:

 
2003-02-28 01:26:22 PM  
Great mountain-biking, beautiful scenery. Somehow I don't think it's really going to hurt their image.

Now maybe if it was Scud, Utah or Dirtybomb, Utah...
 
2003-02-28 03:22:30 PM  
"We strongly believe that our city's name could be severely damaged by naming the bomb after Moab, thereby negating years and dollars spent in marketing and promoting our town," the letter said.

dollars... i'm guessing about $3
 
2003-02-28 04:11:31 PM  
MOAB = "massive ordnance air bust"
Massive air bust?
Massive bust?
?
 
2003-02-28 04:30:11 PM  
FLIM MOAB.
 
2003-02-28 05:17:58 PM  
Well, if they do change the name, then a good town to name a bomb after would be Chelsea, Mass., a town that would highly improve if it were bombed a couple of times.
 
2003-02-28 05:18:19 PM  
That's assuming Moab, Utah has a reputation to begin with.
 
2003-02-28 05:22:04 PM  
maybe they should just rename Moab.

Moab... wtf is a Moab? icky word
 
2003-02-28 05:22:31 PM  
As president of the Boston University Society of Hermaphrodites, I have all *kinds* of problems with Bush right now, but hey, whaddaya gonna do?
 
2003-02-28 05:24:50 PM  
Moab is a big tourist destination, a great film location, and it's relatively cool. Of course, that's relative to the REST of Utah, so....

Still, maybe we ought to be naming the bombs after the warheads: the Rummy, for example. I'd suggest the Bush, but since that's an EMPTY warhead the moniker might lack punch.
 
2003-02-28 05:25:43 PM  
Moab rules. The town that is. Ive tried to go mountain biking there at least once a year for the last 7 years. Good place to have the skin shredded off your body.
 
2003-02-28 05:26:23 PM  
yeah.. Instead of naming them Moab missiles , they should name them Salt Lake City missiles.
 
2003-02-28 05:26:47 PM  
It is tourist attraction. Drive around Salt Lake City for a day, half of the jeeps in town have a Moab sticker on them.
 
2003-02-28 05:28:01 PM  
""Utah, has asked Bush not to use the acronym MOAB for a new bomb because it could damage city's image""

In other news Iraqi children have ask President Bush to not use MOAB on them because it could damage the city's....city.
 
2003-02-28 05:29:10 PM  
Since we all know that these bombs are going to be used to free Iraqis, not to kill them, I propose calling them Liberators.
 
2003-02-28 05:32:14 PM  
Mo what? Never farking heard of it but it sounds like a bad name for a place or bomb. Jihadistan and Jihadbuster sounds better.
 
2003-02-28 05:32:42 PM  
Good idea GreyAlien

"Here let me just Liberate you rib cage from your torso"

"Hang on a sec while we Liberate the air from your lungs"

/Sorry - feeling decidly left these days. MN is about to get a conceal and carry law and I am pretty tired of all things that go >POP<
 
2003-02-28 05:34:37 PM  
They're right. Don't hurt the town's image and call the bomb MOAB. Re-name it PARIS, instead.

/nothin'
 
2003-02-28 05:35:43 PM  
I volunteer the use of my city's name...however an acronym for the word ALBUQUERQUE might be difficult to come up with.
 
2003-02-28 05:36:16 PM  
Kaka: HA! Thanks for the laugh!
 
2003-02-28 05:36:28 PM  
New missile names:

Furious George
Sandblaster
The Liberator
Freedomizer
YSHLF12 (ya shouldn't have lied for 12 years)

and finally
WASTYD (we are smarter than you... douchebag)
 
2003-02-28 05:36:33 PM  
Moab Missiles? good band name
 
2003-02-28 05:49:02 PM  
Please, the real meaning of 'MOAB' is 'Mother Of All Bombs'
 
2003-02-28 05:57:02 PM  
Wouldn't that be 'MoaB', rather than 'MOAB'?


/smartass
 
2003-02-28 06:01:41 PM  
Long live the fighters!

Mo'ab! Mo'ab! Mo'ab!
 
2003-02-28 06:02:44 PM  
Actually, MOAB is the closest George can come to spelling "bomb"
 
2003-02-28 06:06:30 PM  
u.s. set to unveil massive new bomb
by John McWethy, ABCNews.com - February 26, 2003

When and if the United States does go to war, military sources say the United States is preparing a monster new weapon to be used during the first nights.
It's called MOAB, short for "massive ordnance air burst" bomb. It is a modern, bigger version of the 15,000-pound "Daisy Cutter" used in Vietnam, the Persian Gulf War and Afghanistan.

Sources say MOAB - still experimental - is a 21,000-pound bomb that will be pushed out the back of a C-130 transport and guided by satellite. Because it is not dropped by parachute, as was the old Daisy Cutter, the aircraft can let it go from far higher altitudes, making it safer for U.S. pilots.

The MOAB's massive explosive punch, sources say, is similar to a small nuclear weapon.



"SADDAM! If you don't give up your Weaps of Mass Destruction we are going to start dropping MOAB - which is similar to a nuclear weapon!"
 
2003-02-28 06:13:06 PM  
Good point KaKa - I mean WTF?

Weapons of mass destruction can be just about anything - in Rwanda it was a machete
 
2003-02-28 06:14:32 PM  
Couldn't you have just copied and pasted the last sentence, or, at most, the last paragraph, as well as the last sentence?
 
2003-02-28 06:17:44 PM  
Moab is a nice place, I did some rock climbing there. and Canyonlands National Park is incredible. It's like traveling 90 million years back in time.
 
2003-02-28 06:18:42 PM  
And the reason a MOAB isn't considered a weapon of mass destruction is most likely because it DOESN'T go nuclear. They were comparing it to a nuclear weapon in the damage the explosion can do and the blast radius, but a nuclear weapon can be used in many many more applications than just military. Nuclear weapons are more political levers than actual weapons. Plus, nuclear weapons can have radioactive fallout, which a conventional bomb, regardless of size, would not have.
 
2003-02-28 06:19:56 PM  
Sorry to make you scroll the extra 1/2 second Magic.

Sheese - I put it all there in case someone was curious about what MOAB is.


/righteous indignation
 
2003-02-28 06:21:22 PM  
Magic - I seem to recall Mr Pres. saying back in Nov, 2001 that a farking city bus could be considered a WoMD.
 
2003-02-28 06:23:48 PM  
Nuclear weapons are not really actual weapons? Is that why we have that not-so-real non-proliferation treaty and don't care so much if Al Qaeda gets fissile material?

/learn something new everyday
 
2003-02-28 06:26:19 PM  
BlissKitchen:
Good call. I was about to say the same thing...good thing I read thru the thread!
Anyhow, I'll listen to the people of Moab, but first they have to:
1. Shave
2. Eat some meat
3. Lay off the mountain bikes for a while
 
2003-02-28 06:30:17 PM  
Oh yeah? I live in ROTFLMAO Oklahoma, and we don't complain one bit!
 
2003-02-28 06:37:06 PM  
Kaka - Our president is an idiot, and I was just doing that 'cause I was bored, no offense intended :P

Chad_beaverwood - I never said they weren't real weapons. I simply said that they are more a political weapon, used for leverage, than an actual one. Meaning, you don't go dropping nukes every war you have, but you can use them to 'coax' concessions from your enemies. I do not recall ever putting words in your mouth or twisting what you have said, I would greatly appreciate it if you returned the favor.
 
2003-02-28 06:43:17 PM  
It's rather idiotic to try to argue both ways - others can't have nukes cuz they can't be trusted with such deadly weapons but we can drop big ass conventional bombs on folks and it's ok because they don't have fallout.

Massive death is massive death and I don't apologize for stepping on toes when arguing against the hypocrisy of modern war
 
2003-02-28 06:45:13 PM  
Interestingly, Moab, Utah is named for an ancient place not far from modern-day Iraq:

MOAB: Ancient nation located in the uplands east of the Dead
Sea and now a part of Jordan. The area is unprotected from the east hence its history is a chain of raids by the Bedouins. The Moabites were close kin to the Hebrews and the language of the Moabite Stone is practically the same as biblical Hebrew. The relations of Moab with Judah and Israel are continually mentioned in the Bible. As a political entity Moab came to an end after the invasion (circa 733 BC) of Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria. Its people were later absorbed by the Nabataeans. The Moabite religion was much like that of Canaan. Archaeological exploration in Moab has shown that settlements first occurred in the 13th century BC.
 
2003-02-28 06:49:48 PM  
Magic (politely) I have to say that I feel your logic is flawed here.

Consider:

"And the reason a MOAB isn't considered a weapon of mass destruction is most likely because it DOESN'T go nuclear"

WoMD are not necessarily nuclear - we are getting ready to bomb the nuts of the squirrls in Iraq all because Saddam is supposed to have Bio and Chemical 'WoMB's'.

"They were comparing it to a nuclear weapon in the damage the explosion can do and the blast radius"

So it sounds to me that MOAB is kindof capable of some mass destruction.

"Nuclear weapons are more political levers than actual weapons."

Until the NK toss one over to Nagata or India burps one over to Khandahar...history will prove you right or wrong on that one.


"Plus, nuclear weapons can have radioactive fallout, which a conventional bomb, regardless of size, would not have."

I am thinking that a Bio/Chem weap (regardless of who may or may not have them - besides US) leaves a few nasties lying about - ever see a soldier in a bio/chem warfare suit. Radioactive fallout does not qualify a WoMD - if you were to drop a MOAB or three on downtown Baghdad - I am thinking there just might be some good old 'Mass Destruction' going on there.

BTW The reference to the city bus was mentioned by El Presidente' while he was making the case that a couple three 767's were WoMD and we should treat the attackers as users of WoMD.

K
 
2003-02-28 06:51:49 PM  
BTW Chad_beaverwood - good point on the Machete analogy.
 
2003-02-28 06:58:48 PM  
Moab:

Worst. Food. Ever.

They have this thing about not putting salt on anything there. Also the hotels suck.
 
2003-02-28 07:21:51 PM  
I think using such bombs in the war against Iraq will definitely improve the Iraq nation's opinion against their liberators (the US), help the establishment of a stable US-friendly government in Iraq and overall stability of the region. It'd certainly discourage any Iraqis to join anti-US terrorist formations in seek of a vengeance. Don't you think?
 
2003-02-28 07:28:21 PM  
Moab is a great place to go for mountain biking, rafting and getting wasted with pseudo hippie college chicks!
 
2003-02-28 07:32:09 PM  
"You know how your sunny bunny loves his tiny pies"

I love this guy. oh wait, not Mo(B)ab.... I'm leaving
 
2003-02-28 07:33:15 PM  
I wasn't aware when he made the reference to a bus being a weapon of mass destruction, so I apologize for anything I siad in that regard.

I also thought biological/chemical weapons were also considered weapons of mass destruction? (asking, not being an ass. Now that you present that argument, I am a bit unsure.) If so, all that does is present similarities that other Weapons of Mass Destruction have to nuclear weapons that the MOAB does not. Although I'm sure that the list of perks a weapon has to have to be 'officially' a Weapon of Mass Destruction are not solely based upon the amount of destruction caused at ground zero, and the blast radius.
Although I do agree with you (I think this is what you were saying your opinion was)that anything that does an amount that equals or exceeds a specefic amount of damage(as the MOAB would) should be considered a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

The only time nuclear weapons have EVER been used in warfare was at the end of World War II(As I'm sure you are aware). My reference to them being more political levers than actual weapons was mainly supported by how they were used during the Cold War; not as actual weapons, to kill the enemy, but rather as levers to get what you want through political means.

Now that I look back, I realize that my saying, "And the reason a MOAB is not considered a weapon of mass destruction is most likely because it DOESN'T go nuclear." is flawed(That is, if chemical/biological weapons are considered WoMD's, of which I am unsure now that you have mentioned them.)
 
2003-02-28 07:33:21 PM  
Here I am amazed once again that there is a thread about Utah and aside from the Polygamy Beer (awesome graphic, by the way) there aren't any criticisms about Mormons.
 
2003-02-28 07:34:36 PM  
siad = said


(obviously)
 
2003-02-28 07:35:03 PM  
XYNHR

Yeah - I think you pretty much summed it all up. Hell even it that's not how it works out - just think of all the parking space!

How ironic - NYC dwellers are dying for parking space. It is a long walk to the office to be sure but -

/o never mind.

XYNHR :)
 
Displayed 50 of 76 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report